Screw U Vehicles
Or: Why I Hate SUVs Personally, when I say SUV, I mean something like a Land Rover Discovery or a Toyota Landcruiser. I mean something that looks like a small truck, of the variety that Jeremy Clarkson would recommend for the nervous female to make her feel better about driving around the streets of Orpington. The ones that are advertised as being ace for day-tripping up the Skeleton Coast, even though the furthest off-road they are ever likely to get is the grass verge near the school when little John and Freddy are being collected. The sort of thing that requires a small step ladder to get in and out. That's what I mean by an SUV. Not like the Subaru Roger the smallholder at work has - a 4 wheel drive car that nevertheless looks like an ordinary estate. He uses that for towing animals all over the place and I've driven it for him. It's very nice, eminently practical, and isn't an SUV. Now, when I was a kid, we used to take all sorts of friends all over the place. I distinctly recall my brother and I having friends go swimming with us, in addition to my Mum and Dad. So that's four kids plus two parents in one car. My parents have owned an Alfa Romeo and several Rovers, but they were all saloons. We didn't ever have any problem. I have yet to see anyone other than agricultural workers come up with a decent reason for owning an SUV. My Uncle Bill has always had Range Rovers, but I'll let him off because he's a farmer and his wife breeds horses and these vehicles get used for their intended purpose; i.e. off-road, dragging horses and sheep around. I really have no issue with those using these things as agricultural vehicles. I do take issue with those suburban commuters who seem to think that the need to transport 4 kids to and from school is a reason to buy some bull-barred monstrosity. Or, worse, because it makes the little woman feel safer. Never bloody mind what might happen to pedestrians/cyclists should she have a momentary lapse in concentration due to one of the kids playing up and hit someone. According to recent studies, should that happen, the victim is twice as likely to die as a result1. This isn't about freedom of speech or freedom of choice. This is about social responsibility. There is a society. It's society that declares that murdering the two Soham kids was wrong. It's society that determines that slavery was a bad idea. It's society that watches telly and pays for the BBC. It's society that pays for the roads and the NHS and the police. The idea that we should be free to drive whatever the Hel we want in whatever circumstances we want belongs to a world where there is no society. That's where the individual comes first, where no-one and nothing else matters as much as making ourselves feel better. That's where all people cycle purely because it suits them to do so and not one actually cares one jot whether or not it is helping to prevent pollution, global warming, congestion, obesity, coronary heart disease or deaths from asthma. That is where it really isn't about the bike, but about the person. Me first; me and mine; I'm alright Jack the rest of you can go fuck a spud. Get in my way and I'll fire my radiator-mounted rocket launcher up your ass and it's your damn fault for being there. I'll drive what I like when I like and how I like and what the fuck do I care about the consequences anyway? I'm not interested in being inconvenienced by having to think of alternate solutions. I'm not prepared to tell the other self-serving jocks that I can't take their kiddies to football practice because my dick isn't long enough for me to require a 12 seater 4WD to carry it around in. The only reason I mutter about bad driving is because, you know, one day it might be me or mine that they hit. I keep saying it: your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose. At the end of the day we can boil it all down to Game Theory, and because Man is a social animal, the altruists will win. That's mathematics for you. People are inherently selfish, but we're saved by the fact that there is a society, no matter what Thatcher and her proteges may have you believe, and in a social context it pays to be altruistic. The selfish route requires one to have a social conscience, if only on paper. So the doves will end up chucking stones, chainsets and bits of the Kyoto Protocol at the hawks, at least metaphorically. People can justify SUVs - but people can justify driving half a mile to work as well. Need to drop the kids off, that roundabout is too dangerous, it was raining this morning, I can't be arsed.....people can justify anything to themselves. What makes the difference is whether or not they can justify it to society. I don't think that the SUV is justifiable as anything other than an agricultural vehicle to anyone that is considering the wider implications. In a way this is about freedom of choice. But that means everyone's freedom of choice, not just the SUV drivers'. And yet, there is a suggestion that they're not that much worse than ordinary cars anyway2. To which I say: what about the psychology of SUV drivers and how likely they are to behave? We could (not saying should, but could) argue that the person who chooses an SUV over an ordinary saloon is showing more selfish tendencies than one who does not. They are bigger, bulkier, use more resources than a saloon of similar age. They are evidently attracted by some aspect of this - a greater feeling of personal safety has been cited. The idea that if there is a crash, then the other person is going to come off worse (whether or not this is the case). None of this fills me with a warm sense of hugs.  What else could we say about the person who buys a vehicle marketed to the rugged outdoor type (anyone seen the current Mitsubishi advert - don't get much call for sweaty female lumberjacks in Orpington, I would imagine) who thinks he needs something capable of traversing the Gobi? A tendency to buy into the marketing, to pander to his fantasies rather than a spot of common sense? What about the RAV4 campaign, during which it's seen as ok to smack a newspaper boy over the head with a newspaper (common assault, incidentally) just because he winds you up?  Just think about what the purchase of these vehicles says about the person. These are seen as little fortresses, that will go anywhere, do anything. It's about personal freedom. If safety is mentioned, it's the safety of the passengers. You'll never find an SUV campaign talking about efficiency or safety. You just find them talking about how cool and manly it is to be able to drive halfway across the Himalayas to have a picnic. Check out the picture of the Hummer: does your average resident of Maidenhead really expect to be going Mountain Biking in the Sahara? Well, no, but that didn't prevent Top Gear waxing lyrical. Let me put it this way. Given the choice, would you rather share the road with the sort of person whom you think would drive a Hummer, or the sort of person whom you think would drive a mini (old type, just because the new ones are sacrilege)? Road safety isn't just about what is likely to happen to you, it is also about what you perceive as being likely to happen to you. At the end of the day, SUVs take up more space, they are apparently bigger and bulkier, and when a Vauxhall Astra brushes past my shoulder with 6 inches to spare it's not nearly as frightening as having a Toyota Landcruiser brush past with a foot to spare. That sense of threat is enough to keep many from exercising their right to ride their bikes on the road. The roads are perceived as being dangerous, and seeing people driving around in miniature fortresses isn't helping. Risk comes in two forms: actual risk, which is a statistical nicety; and perceived risk, which affects behaviour. Most of the time the two don't coincide. Even if we can come up with numbers suggesting that SUVs are no worse empirically than ordinary cars, there is still the issue of their affect on perceived danger. As a cyclist, and cycle campaigner (short hair, piercings, tattoos, false eye - does that make it wrong?) I want the roads to be perceived as public space, not as motorised free-for-alls.  1: See the New Scientist report of 12th December 2003. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994462. 2: See the EuroNCAP Safety Ratings at http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/introduction.php |
Copyright Samantha Fleming, 2003. All rights reserved.